John Howard is on the front page of the Sydney Sunday Telegraph proclaiming “I’d stop the boats!”…
Meanwhile, all week since the Newspoll likely outlier, the tone of the media coverage and commentary has shifted. Glenn Milne, with his accustomed lack of subtlety, gives the game away in his column today, claiming that the effects of the poll are “real”, even if it’s wrong.
This claim is supported by the usual panoply of quotes from unnamed senior Liberal sources, and the press gallery line du jour – that Turnbull can succeed by making the government the issue (and by having no policy on anything – asylum seekers or otherwise – which would actually allow him to be scrutinised). That needs to be considered along with that other recurrent media theme – that they (and the opposition) perform a valuable public service by keeping the government accountable. In truth, it’s all about the drama and the sense of power.
I, for one, am still not convinced that the asylum seekers “crisis” is one. I doubt many voters are really all that concerned. Australian politics – except in the mind of the political class itself – is not stuck in an eternal loop. Howard’s use of the Tampa was exemplary of an ability he once had to exploit elements of the national mood – it worked not because Australians are inherently xenophobic, but because it channeled a set of fears and anxieties characteristic of a particular cultural moment and projected them towards refugees. In the longer view, it was in some ways the end of an era where the Hansonite outbreaks were already a last gasp.
A secular shift in the register of issues, and the particular take on the asylum seeker brouhaha, had already happened by the beginning of 2007, and was itself a harbinger of Howard’s defeat. Among related reasons for his defeat was the fact that the electorate got tired of loud, noisy symbolic political clashes and culture wars. I think Rudd knew that then, and knows that now, and that’s why his calm demeanour works.
So, I’m not at all certain that many outside the Canberra beltway are actually paying attention to the “crises”. The noise itself might be a turnoff.
And, as noted by a number of commenters on the open thread, missing in all the media talk has been not just the Essential Research poll which was taken at the same time as the Newspoll, but also Morgan on Friday – another sample taken simultaneously. It’s not at all unreasonable to believe that the message from these two polls is that all this is just a preoccupation of the Canberra elites. Which is ironic, when you think about it – because populism employed in the service of naked electoral self interest, the desire for Sturm und Drang and on the backs of the poor and dispossessed of the world is not always an electoral winner. Which is good.
Yes, John Howard http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/08/2736307.htm about 2007 election loss.
Didnt take him long to turn into a Keating-style commentator on his sucessor. In fact, it took about 3 years less than PJK himself!
Codefail! Lets try again…
Yes, John Howard most definitely not bitter about 2007 election loss.
Didnt take him long to turn into a Keating-style commentator on his successor. In fact, it took about 3 years less than PJK himself!
“I’d Stop the Boats!” Indisputably he would. He has form in this area.
The “secular shift” in the beginning of 2007 (ie, “boat peopl no longer in the national consciousness”) was due to there not being any boat people. (ie, the boats had stopped coming)
The ALP was never going to be voted in so long as the people of western Sydney thought the ALP was going to “open the detention centres”.
Loop back to boat people arriving, and we may well loop back to an electorate that says it wants the border controlled.
“The “secular shift” in the beginning of 2007 (ie, “boat peopl no longer in the national consciousness”) was due to there not being any boat people. (ie, the boats had stopped
comingleaving)”Yes!All the important persons have comments on the Teeeveeee and elsewhere,about Moral conundrums they create themselves.After all Howard started something,it is therefore fitting we see his face everywhere,until the media decides the crisis is over,because of falling attendances at their respective Churches.Perhaps an interview on the hour everyday from now on end.Profiles on the ABC about his first appearances in Media with a Soap winning exercise of lateral thinking,and lets us all dine out on the interspersed words about Our Don Bradman.
That wasn’t so, anyway, and it’s not the only indicator. Howard’s backflip on Hicks, and the increasing willingness of small l Liberals to speak up on these sorts of issues were also indicators of a change in sentiment.
Nostrums about “what people in Western Sydney think” are based on assumption, and often lazy ones. I strongly suspect that those who are putting their bets on this horse are backing a nag.
And the broader point is that changes in public opinion don’t neatly match with media perceptions and political lines. Often, in fact, it’s the political class scrambling to catch up, if they have the wit to see it. Often, also, they don’t.
Never underestimate the futility of conventional wisdom and the isolation of media and political elites.
Ok Ill explain this again from the viewpoint of someone who was working in detention when the TPVs were introduced.
The attraction with Australias laws as they stand at the moment is it only takes one family member to be successful in their asylum claim for the whole direct family to be granted the same. Leaving aside the issues of “real” or “false” refugees altogether this alone makes Australia a desirable place to send a family member.
What the TPV did was not allow this type of reunion asylum to be automatically granted. That was the unattractive part of the TPV for the vast majority of Asylum seekers.
The tragedy of the SIEV X affected mainly women and children precisely because this form of migration had stopped.
For most Middle eastern/Afghan asylum seekers the plan was as follows.
Send 1 family member.
They are accepted as a refugee.
Family group applies and is granted almost automatically from wherever they were located.
The boats that came after the TPV was introduced were (in many cases) the families which had counted on automatic entry because (generally) the husband had been granted a visa.
I had refugees telling me the TPV was the biggest stopper of more boats, I am a little annoyed to see myth making that the whole rise in boats is “push” factors.
Its fine to have a go at the morality of the players in the issue, but its self defeating not to recognise Howards approach did achieve its aim.
Thats not to say Rudd must do the same, he may be clever enough to find a middle way.
The timing of the announcement of the ending of TPVs was also extremely shady. It was announced at the start of the cyclone season, ensuring a good 3-4 month dead period up north anyway. That either indicates they knew the likely outcome of the elimination of TPVs, and wanted a bit of “thats old news” to cover it up, or an extreme coincidence…
That’s right Mole – the TPV increased the number of boat arrivvals. This is just a fact, and Id like to see the ALP say it. Note among the 78 on the OV only 5 are women or children. On the SIEVs from 2001-2 women and children were 60+plus.
And Steve, could you perhaps explain how Howard’s laws stopped the boats to Europe as well, at exactly the same time?
The ALP should get on the front foot – Howard’s case is laughably weak, and won t withstand the merest scrutiny. It was just a political fix (detour them via Nauru).
They ALL came here in the end. After we spent billions. Thats why the Libs will never restore the Pacific solution. It was an expensive flop; a one-off political fix for 2001 with no policy merit at all. And they know it.
And yet, despite Mr Howard’s sterling record (modestly, Mr Howard reminds the reading public of Sydney of his sterling record) the people of Australia tossed him out in a landslide.
And worse, Mr Howard became the second PM in Australia’s history to lose his own seat.
Oh, the ingratitude of the voting public!
But maybe, Mr Howard’s problem way back in 2007 was his famous modesty. Why, oh why, didn’t Mr Howard tell the electorate of his sterling record?
Did Mr Howard neglect to mention his sterling record?
Was age catching up with Mr Howard way back in 2007?
Dear Johnny,
If we wanted to hear your opinion, we would not have tossed you out of office and your electorate’s seat.
Cheers,
Kyle
Is it my imagination, or are the MSM journo’s (even Sunday morning political TV) ignoring the bloggers?
It would be great if the likes of Cassidy, et al include some segment of “what the bloggers say”.
But Lefty E, one of the ABC’s political correspondents told me that Howard’s border protection policies worked. And as the ABC is ‘Sydney’s most trusted source of news and informaion’, I believed her.
But dont take my word for it! note asylum seeker arrivals to the EU by 2004 had fallen 40% from a peak in 2001 to the “lowest level in 16 years”.
We had EXACTLY the same pattern in Australia. This is the pattern Rodent is trumpeting as a victory for border protection policies introduced – you guessed it, in late 2001.
Sorry, but sections of the Australian public were sold a pup. Howard claims were, and remain, untrue.
If JWH would like to make good his promise to stop the boats, my cousin has an old tinnie under the tank stand. It’s only got one oar but I reckon he’d do a sterling job bobbing about in the Timor Sea, our own Boat Canute.
Now, if someone else would like to come up with a SENSIBLE and HUMANE suggestion…
Adrian, if it werent so tragic it would be a syndicated comedy by now. Back to the Future with Chris Uhlmann, reporting the latest breaking news from 2001.
I know this will seem naive of me, Australian media, but is there any chance of scrutinising some of these claims for their veracity?
Like, say, a proper journalist might?
Lefty E
There’s an alternative interpretation of the EU figures. Not only is Iron Bar Johnny capable of ruling the waves off the north west shores of this vast continent; his amazing powers extend to the English Channel, the Mediterranean, and all major highways and rail networks leading into the EU.
Plus the airports (in Europe mind, not here).
How could the voters of Bennelong have behaved so ungraciously? They should have carried him into the National Tally Room on their shoulders, magnificently and justly triumphant, to loud huzzahs from those unfortunate enough to be enrolled in other electorates!
I know, its incredible Ambi – Howard saved TEH ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD from asylum seekers with his amazing legislation.
But seriously, its satisfying to see him revealed as he is – every bit as bitter about his humiliating electoral loss as Keating was.
Maybe more so – Keating waited 5 years to rant at his successor.
I thought the Howard Govt perfected its policy on border protection and boat people with the SIEVX. Letting them all drown solved all the Howard Govts problems, and none could claim to be harder on border protection than that,apart sending out F1-11s for pre-emptive strikes on their points of departure.
Honestly, the appearance of Howard in the papers on border protection was in itself a grubby dog-whistle. They could have dumped Howard and just gone straight to the ultimate solution with a picture of the KKK claiming they could stop the boats straight away.
Why go your own clumsy dog-whistles when you can simply role out the Emperor who by his very appearance invokes every manner of dog-whistle. It saves you all that typing.
I dunno, Bernice. I reckon putting JWH out to sea in a tinnie with one oar is about as humane as it gets.
Good piece Mark – I hope you’re right (I think you are).
There is a case to be made for disouraging people from trying to travel long distances to Australia in unseaworthy boats – a case that has nothing to do with the ugly politics Howard whipped up. It’s a sense that Australia almost has a duty of care.
There are various of ways of trying to do that in a humane way. But what do others think – do you think we can/should try to prevent these voyages (without resorting to the grubbiness of the Howard years, of course)? Or does discouraging people fleeing persecution and dangerous circumstances create just as many humanitarian problems as it solves?
I really would like some thoughts on this (I’m not certain in my own mind)…..Tory trolls need not comment.
….I meant discouraging.
Lefty E
You are correct, the introduction of the TPV resulted (indirectly) in the disaster of the SIEV X. However if you are going to lay the blame for that at Howards feet then the losses of life that have resulted since the boats re-commenced must be Mr Rudds?
The introduction of the TPV saw a last rush as families split by the TPV attempted to join (again usually the fathers) the family member already in Australia. It wasn’t a failure if you measure it by the overall effect it had, which was a rapid decline in boat arrivals. To claim it was is to fall into the wishful thinking that has led to the resumption of traffic.
You are also falling into the trap of quoting that 40% drop as the reason we had nearly no boat arrivals while the TPVs were in place.
To pull up a few from memory.
Push factors probably haven’t change a lot for Palestinians, Ivory coast, Afghan (Hazara in particular), Iranians and a bevy of other nationalities.
A 40% reduction doesn’t transfer into “no boats coming”.
It worked, weather it was moral or not is difficult to either defend or attack.
No-one will ever invent a perfect system that balances everything, there are only a set of decisions that will have terrible effects whichever way it plays out.
Stop the boats: People who may have valid claims may die.
Don’t stop the boats: People will be ripped off and may die on the trip over.
Ginja: For what its worth Id probably run it this way.
Australia announces it will be building a resettlement village in 3 or 4 major transit countries. 10,0000 people a year. In addition we pay the transit countries for allowing this to happen.
We staff and run them teaching the applicants English, Australian basics (banking, looking for work, basic law etc). We are fairly strict on behavior as a ruling out factor, as well as refusing to privilege any religion over another. (Eg: Muslim/Mandaleans in Iran).
At the end of one year we welcome 30,000 people into our immigration stream.
Im happy to see a trade off of more refugees sourced offshore and a refusal outright to allow onshore applications. Again its not a hugely moral arrangement, some deserving will miss out, but that’s already happening.
Mole.
Wouldn’t they be literally killing each other to get in? OR how would YOU choose which ‘applicants’ entered your ‘glass bead game’. First come first served? Or is there a role in these aussi transit camps for the UNHCR screening applicants? Don’t get me wrong I would like to know more.
My view on the dramatic collapse in the Rudd Government in the Newspol is that the public was very turned off the Sri Lankans aboard the Ocean Voyager dictating terms. I think the public is generally sympathetic toward assylum seekers while they appear grateful for any assistance but the moment they get ‘uppity’ and it seems to work then the government has problems.
A second question mark hanging over the Sri Lankan Tamils is that these people employed suicide bombing in their cause, perhaps the first to do so. However just it may have been to them I value human life and so my view of anyone who employs suicide bombings as a terror tactic is very low and I would be wary of a government that seemingly ignored it.
Robert, Some support for your doubts on the boat people being a major voter issue comes from the Morgan poll which shows an increase in the Greens primary vote, with a slight srop in the ALP primary and a bigger drop in the Coalition primary.
Oops, sorry that should have said Mark.
Sorry Mole, but I have to disagree – the TPV was introduced in 1999 and then we had a massive and prolonged upsurge in boat arrivals until 2002 – its simply not true that it led to “a rapid decline in boat arrivals”.
In fact we never received so many by boat: 3721 in 1999, 2939 in 2000, and 5516 in 2001. But then, there was an upsurge all round the globe, owing to push factors in Iraq and Afghanistan. These 3 years were the highest for asylum application in all receiving countries.
As for the “Pacific Solution” Border Protection Amendments of October 2001, its difficult to draw a conclusion on them, since they were never genuinely tested: asylum seeking dropped dramatically – everywhere – from 2002, as you saw in the BBC reports above – to the lowest level in 16 years. Australia was no different. And all but two of the 1500 processed on Manus or Nauru came to Australia in the end – so really, it was just an expensive detour. About 18 boats arrived anyway from between 2001-2007. Note also that DIAC arrivals numbers dont include those intercepted enroute to Australia – so they’re also a bit misleading.
I didnt make any comment about the SIEV X.
And we cant refuse onshore application “outright”, as that’s the only legal obligation we have under international law. Our offshore program is entirely voluntary – the onshore program is a binding committment we made under treaty.
> How could the voters of Bennelong have behaved so ungraciously?
Didn’t anybody see how ABC was painting an ungly image of Howard before the election time? And Bennelong was grabbed by Maxine; was it a coincidence?
Don’t underestimate the subtle influcence of media.
Lefty E
Im going on what refugees themselves said. They were pretty blunt in their assessment of the TPV.
The lowering of asylum seekers doesnt explain the almost comlplete lack of boats for the last couple of years. Why didnt we see a 40% drop instead of none?
pablo
Glad you asked because I forgot to add that bit. Id straightforward farm the selection of applicants out to the UN. It may be argued that leaves it open to corruption, but in a sense its allready corrupted with people being able to pay smugglers.
Its nowhere near perfect, but it would take all the heat out of the boats as an issue, and see more people granted asylum. I think that stacks up pretty well against pot luck and large sums of money.
Interesting Mole. Anyone else with any thoughts?
Left E: you make a good point, too. Onshore (mainland) applicants for refugee status have dramatically more rights than those sent to Christmas Island, isn’t that the case?
They have very limited access to the Australian legal system, Ginja.
Those arriving at an excised place and taken to Xmas Island only have access to internal (departmental) review, and Ministerial discretion – rather than Refugee Review Tribunal, or judicial review.
I do hope I’m not going to be subjected regularly to Ratty’s Evil Glare.
I think this current asylum seekers scare will disappear once we get onto the ETS and Copenhagen. Mind you, its already clear on the latter the world’s politicians are going to sell us out. As if they’d have the moral courage to do anything else.
Ratty’s re-appearance really is a storm in a very small tracup.
@20 – thanks, Ginja!
@32 – indeed, Paul, it is a storm in the teacup. So why is he given the front page of the Sunday paper in Australia’s biggest city? …
Answering Mark’s rhetorical question – why the front page of the Sunday Terror?
It makes good copy
It supports the poll results from the previous week in a subjective manner
It reminds Aunty Kev that Rupert & his underlings are more than happy to have a stoush
It also acts in a small way as a piece of push polling
Though it will be interesting to watch News Corp & other media response to today’s Nielsen poll….
Labor’s lead makes Rudd’s lack of agenda setting on the issue of a humanitarian response to refugees all the more frustrating. It is quite possible to lead the Aust electorate – Howard did it over gun control post Port Arthur, in the face of hysterical warnings and well entrenched interest groups. Frankly Labor are making a hash of immigration – boat people, skilled migration program & 457 visas. They may not have made the mess; but they’re not doing anything very clever to fix it either. Rudd has a chance to take the electorate with him on this – his failure is hardly in the spirit of Bonhoeffer.
John Howard may have led the Australian electorate over gun control, however he was decisive about it.
Kevin Rudd has dithered so much over impromptu boat arrivals that he’s looking like a very weak reed indeed.
Er.. Bernice, Kevin Rudd HAS made a hash of the skilled migration programme and 457 visas. The constant chopping & changing of the rules on these has demonstrated the government is more or less rudderless in this area.
Steve, the legislation re 457 visas and skilled migration were for the most part introduced by Howard (in the case of 457s, pretty much Keating’s intended legislative program).
Evans has spoken a number of times about his concerns about so much of immigration governing policies & decision making processes being at the minister’s behest; but where are the departmental & legislative reforms to fix this?
It seems that from the latest Nielsen poll this morning that support for political parties since the last poll a month ago was 1 percentage point. This is well within the 2-3 percent of margin of error inherent in such polls.
There have been two other polls since the notorious Newspoll a week ago, which misled the mainstream media, especially the ABC, into believing its claim of a collapse of support for the Rudd government over the asylum seekers.
This morning’s Nielsen poll indicates strongly that the Newspoll was an outlier or a rogue poll totally misrepresenting the view of the people. Moreover, it was either deliberately misleading and therefore malicious and calculated to damage the ALP’s standing (and thus help the Coalition which is struggling for support) or was a outlier/rogue poll, created by gross statistical error.
Perhaps we should have a poll on that poll. In the Nielsen poll 50 per cent say that Rudd’s handling of the asylum seekers on boats issue has either been right or too harsh, 50 per cent say it is too weak.
Steve at the Pub belongs in the latter category, as per his comment at no.35. He is entitled to his opinion, of course. But he is deluding himself if he thinks that he is speaking as the either the voice of majority or from some authority, as yet unfathomable.
With regard to Rudd’s standing overall and voting intentions re the ALP federally, generally, the opinion is said to be unchanged from all the other polling previously and the results of the last election. The Rudd government has retained is crushing lead over the Lib/NP Coalition.
It is worth noting that News Ltd newspapers have failed to mention this to its readers, putting a spin on its asylum polling yet nary a mention of PM standing figures or voting intentions. Had there been a genuine shift they would have shouted it from the rooftops.
One can only conclude that News Ltd is a lying and cheating propaganda outfit, no different in its partisan intent to Moscow Pravda 1919 to 1991 or the Volkische Beobachter 1933-1945.
Am I being too harsh? Maybe it is just trying to turn a quid, simply pandering to its redneck readers like porn magazines do to their customer base. In either case, it is business as usual.
Either that (and don’t get me wrong, I don’t rule your theory out) or something about their method is actually a bit shoddy, Sir Henry.
I mean, young people swinging wildly, oldies doing nothing, over asylum seekers issues? It was never very likely.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but hasnt Newspoll done this before? Maybe its time a question mark was put over their reliability, as happened to Morgan years ago.
We all know News Ltd’s form in this area, but why is the whole narrative being swallowed hook, line and sinker by their ABC? Has a deal been done with Murdoch that we know nothing about?
Sir Henry,
I think you may have mistyped yourself. Has support for political parties dropped to 1 percent, or has the CHANGE in support been only 1%?
Quibble, pedantry, quibble, dribble.
Now for Neo, who wrote: “Didn’t anybody see how ABC was painting an ungly image of Howard before the election time?”
Ah, Neo. Yes, the ABC was using photographs and video to portray Mr Howard. They should, of course, have used oil paintings throughout 2007. In an oil painting the subject can strike a pose. But there was one big drawback to the oil painting idea (don’t worry, Neo, it was discussed at length by the Board). The drawback was this: He’s no oil painting.
The ABC lately seems to be more of a sub-branch of the Murdoch papers maybe there should be an enquiry into that. I suspect it might present some very interesting results.
(And, in regard to memories, though perhaps a more relevant one, looks like the chap that played Heathcliffe in the recent excellent BBC adaptation of Wuthering Heights is going to play Mad Max.)
Now, if John Howard could get that kind of role …. though I resisted linking to the Alex Hawke/Hitler spoof,regardless of the brilliant line about JWH in it, in all serious, why is that little runt Howard getting all this attention. More Murcoch deflection and lies, I suspect.
Problem is, this storm in a teacup will fool some people.
Once again, poor fella, my country.
Thanks for that Lefty E.
It’s interesting, I remember Graham Morris – I think it was Morris – who said Howard wouldn’t offer a running commentary on every issue once he left office.
What happened to Howard just powerwalking off into the sunset in his tracky dacks?
He got over-exposed on RWDB Cable TV in America so much,they don’t interview him anymore? So now he’s being inflicted on us poor buggers.
It’s obvious what’s happening in newspoll. By leading the poll Howard coming out of the shadows becomes big news hopefully shifting more votes.
Is Newspoll a lie.
No.
They are just leading the truth.
It’s still news today so it’s working. As for the ABC I think the shift is to appear more balanced and less left wing. If I was a right winger I’d be smiling. And then writing another complaint letter. After all until it’s like Fox News it isn’t balanced enough.
On a serious note I applaud Rubb for not taking a broom to the ABC no matter how tempting.
I was hoping the little mongrel would’ve descended into a vortex of alcoholism, despair and dementia by now. Anything, just as long as I don’t have to hear or see him again as long as I live.
He’s no oil painting but he knew how to keep the asylum seekers running.
Canberra doesn’t have a beltway
Bernice @14, best solution yet for an under utilised former PM still suffering delusions of grandeur and hubris. Maybe he could follow in Captain Bligh’s wake and pull off the navigation feat of the century. Lol.
David Irving (no relation) @45, wot you said with bells and whistles on!
I know that, droo. It’s a metaphor. “Inside the Beltway” is American politics speak for the isolation of opinion makers in Washington. It’s obviously pretty transferable.
Can’t see this as a vote changer and I think would be disastrous for the Libs if they make this the centrepiece for their opposition to Rudd. Not sure you could run an election campaign from opposition based on asylum seekers. The boat traffic will slow and sooner or later people are going to realise the Libs don’t have any ideas on the matter either.
As an aside though it has been instructive to watch Rudd react under pressure. Not a pretty sight. What he needed to do from day one as Pm was to tell Australians that boats would come from time to time as a reaction to problems elsewhere. Roll out the stats showing that the people coming to Australia are a trickle compared with other places and that we have to do our bit under international treaty obligations. We will treat people fairly assess them and then do the appropriate thing. His soft/tough rhetoric is confusing to everyone. But he looks like a headless chook on the matter because he is reacting to polling and not establishing the issue on sound principles. Kev needs to go overseas and let Julia take over for a while.
PS Didn’t JWH promise to go quietly into the setting sun? he hasn’t shut up since he was dumped from bennelong.
Mark says:
Mark,
Wrong. There has been no significant secular shift in public opinion on the general question of who “will decide who comes here and the manner in which they come”. The fundamental hostility of the mainstream electorate to maritime people-smuggling remains more or less unchanged throughout the noughties.
The results of Essential Research poll, released a week or so ago, more or less agree with polling done around the time of the Tampa in 2001. Morgan Poll, dated 19 SEP 2001, asked:
The ER poll, dated 02 NOV 2009, suggested:
Virtually no change in public opinion on this question over the whole decade.
This is despite a massive full-court press by the Left-liberal media-academia complex over the past few years, with Fairfax press completely abandoning any pretentions to objectivity or impartiality over the past few months.
Its true that by about 2005 public hysteria about boat people had somewhat subsided from 2001 levels . Border Protection issue is no longer a big vote changer, although it was 911 that won the 2001 election for Howard, not Tampa. I made this point back on 13 JUL 2006 when I argued that there had been an “attenuation of national security and cultural identity issues” which normally favour the L/NP. Possum Pollytics concludes that:
Its also true that the public wants a more humanitarian treatment of asylum-seekers once they make it on-shore. As I argued back in 26 AUG 2004 legitimate reffos deserve a fair go, as TPVs and “Pacific Solution” were unnecessarily harsh, expensive and ineffective. In July 2005 Vanstone abolished the “children behind razor wire policy” instituted by the sainted Keating.
But the most recent polling indicates that the general public is still strongly opposed to people-smugglers organzing the asylum-seeking “boat people” traffic. The latest Newspoll indicates that 57% of the voters think Rudd is doing a bad job on border-protection. Nearly two-thirds of these think Rudd is being “too soft” on them. As Possum Polytics, no fan of reffo bashing, concedes
Since there has been no softening in underlying public opinion towards asylum-seeking boat people I predict that Rudd will continue to maintain a hard line by disrupting and deflecting people smuggling, maintain and probably up-grade Christmas Island detention centre and certainly not cave in to the asylum-seeker protest on the Oceanic Viking.
Maybe Ratty’s capped teeth will fall out as well Di(nr). Apparently he was a truly disgusting sight before he had them done.
Oh, and what you said, 100 times over.
Mark, I reckon Droo has a point. “Inside the Beltway” is an atrociously lazy metaphor to apply to Australian politics, and the fact that the drooling hacks of the press gallery lack the imagination to come up with an approporiate alternative is hardly a good reason to take it up!
IMHO, George Orwell had it: “Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech that you are used to seeing in print”.
Care to suggest an alternative, Tim? I did try to think up another one myself, but failed!
If the rest of Australia is ex-ACT, then Canberra is something less.
How about exACT and enACT?
“What he needed to do from day one as Pm was to tell Australians that boats would come from time to time as a reaction to problems elsewhere…..”
All good in theory, Durutticolumn, but the only way this will calm down is when Liberals and their media allies conclude it is not helping the cause . It is the best thing they have had since utegate and I really doubt it would have mattered what he said as they rake over every little irrelevant detail that they think has some damage value.
Today, for instance, they seemlessly moved on from the killer poll result, that never was, to another they reckon supports it. The assault is flexible, manic and mad.
Mark, there’s obviously no exact equivalent, but for my money ‘inside/outside Canberra’ would suffice or ‘inside/outside the ACT’ as Roger Jones suggested. If a road metaphor is essential, you could try “those at/nowhere near the southern terminus of the Federal Highway”. Alternatively “those with/without a membership of the Natipnal Press Club”.
And we’ve also had the unedifying spectacle of a vist from an American media baron being accorded the status of a royal visit with every morsel of his holiness’s latest utterance re Rudd analysed for possible criticism.
Meanwhile the circle jerk that is the commetariate continues apace, with anybody capable of independent thought long since excluded or retired from the Canberra press gallery, leaving the motley collection of hacks, has-beens, Liberal press release recyclers and sundry nobodies parading their worn out opinions and carping criticisms as revelations from on high.
Enquiring minds want to know which of them ends up with the soggy Sao, adrian.
Yes Durutti, hitting a dozen radio stations in 15 minutes or whatever certainly looked like a white knuckle, screaming heebie-jeebies type situation, all the time repeating words such as “calm” and “methodical”. It seemed as if the government’s script was written by Douglas Adams.
I do not think the punters give a rutti, Durutti, any more, a few years on. Where is the hysteria on talkback. Nah, it seems we’ve moved on. Maybe it is because the Sri Lankans can play cricket (even if a few of them are chuckers). And another thing, Bomber Beazley wasn’t exactly dead against Howard’s policy then and look where it got him. (Please don’t say Washington, Chris.)
@57 – I like the National Press Club membership one, Tim. Wouldn’t have had the foggiest myself what the Federal Highway is.
For those wondering what our version of “in the beltway” would be…surely it would be “inside the roundabout”
For those inside it’s ewasy to think your finger is on the pulse..after all you are literally the centre of the world.
Meanwhile those of us who aren’t trollumists are ignoring the lunatics picnicing in the centre of the roundabout…the other traffic is the important thing.
And getting home.
This, the icy hand of John Howard rising up to reveal its awfully smelly self, is very disturbing: it shows the depths to which these Libs have had to sink just to keep their brand name alive in the MSM! TheY aRe sPOOkeD by the Rudd and Gillard team! Prepare for a landslide as the Lib supporters will reckon the fastest way to right this mess is to send a warning shot through the election result rather than the polls: silly them don’t realise how close it all is…! ***I call that we are witnessing history!***
Sir Henry Casingbroke@#60 Nov 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
Wrong. Over the past decade there has been no change in this country’s underlying public opposition to people-smuggled asylum-seekers.
In SEP 2001 the Morgan poll reported that 68% of those polled wanted boat people “put back to sea”. In NOV 2009 Essential Research poll reported that 66% of those polled wanted boat people “discourag[ed]…and turned away”. See above for more detail.
No doubt the fringe hysteria about “unauthorized maritime arrivals” has ebbed. But the mainstream opinion is still solidly and overwhelmingly opposed to boat people.
This is despite a massive and sustained attempt by elite liberal opinion makers to brow-beat the populus on this issue.
Rudd knows this and knows that if the ALP are perceived as “soft on people smugglers” it will lose votes amongst blue-collars supporters. That is why he is prepared to take a tougher line, hoping he will neutralise the issue.
In case anyone was STILL wondering why asylum seekers in Indonesia aren’t considered to be receiving adequate protection.
http://www.theage.com.au/world/indonesia-moves-to-deport-130-asylum-seekers-20091115-igeb.html
Not to mention the boatload of reffos that just got brassed up (with injuries) because they couldn’t afford to bribe the second Indeonesian patrol boat that encountered them.
Yep – and by many refugee accounts the Indos are considered soft touches compared to the Malaysians.